1. The citation of this case is Re Abdul Manan (1971) 2AII ER 1016 2. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal (civil division) 3. The divisional court, High court, Crown court, County court and the Magistrates court have to follow the decision. 4. Mr Abdul Manan left Pakistan in 1948 to become a seaman on board ship. The Pakistan authorities gave him a passport in 1970. He said he left in January 1971 for a pilgrimage in Mecca. He told a number of lies, such as that he had been here for ten years. Facts were ascertained. Immigration authorities refused him admission.
He applied to the divisional courts for a writ of habeas corpus saying that he is entitled to be here. He says the immigration officers have no power to refuse him admission because he is a commonwealth citizen. It was perectly plain to see he was not lawfully here at all. He was guilty of an offence under ss 4 and 4A of the 1962 act. He has been refused admission. He will be sent off again. He was never a lawfully resident here. The appeal must be dismissed. 5. Lord Denning Mr. Fenton Atkinson LJ and Sir Gordon Willmber gave an opinion.
6. Adlam v Law society (1968) 1 ALL ER 17, (1968) 1 WLR 6, digest (Cont Vol C) 896, 215a. 7. My opinion is that the Adlam v Law society is followed because it supports that ordinarily resident means 'lawfully'. As lawfully was not read into the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 and 1968, it is often read into a statute. For example, Adlam v Law society. 8. The ratio decidendi occurred in the judgement when Mr Manan deserted his ship. He continued to stay there which made him guilty of an offence under ss 4 and 4Ai?? of the 1962 act.
Paragraph 8(2)(b) of Sch 1 to the 1962 Act was what made it clear to the judge that he should be treated as having refused admission. 9. The obiter dicta in this case were when it mentions the income tax case. Its telling us that if this case were an income tax case, then he would be held to be an ordinarily resident here. But it's not an income tax case. It's an immigration case which therefore cannot be held as a lawfully resident here and that's why he has been refused admission here. 10. In this section, I will give a brief analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of Judicial Precedent:
Advantages: Certainty People know what the law is and how it is applied in their case because the courts follow past decisions. It allows lawyers to let their clients know what the outcome will be of their cases; it also lets them know what financial and other arrangements are familiar with law. The House of Lords' Practice Statement points out how important certainty is. Consistency and fairness in the law Deciding similar cases in a similar way is seen as just and fair, just as it's seen that in a game, each team should have the same rule.
If the law is to be credible, it must be consistent. Precision All law cases are precise because the principles of law are set out in actual cases. It is well demonstrated and slowly builds up through the different distinctions of facts that come in each cases before the courts. Flexibility The House of Lords can use the Practice Statement to claim superiority to cases, so therefore, there is room for the law to change. The ability to differentiate cases gives the courts a reason to avoid past decisions and build up the law.
Precedent is another name for a useful time-saving device. Where a principle has been well known, cases with similar facts are unlikely to go through the lengthy process of litigation. Disadvantages: Rigidity Bad decisions made in the past may continue and make law too rigid because of the fact that the lower courts have to follow the higher courts and the Court of Appeal has to follow it's past decisions. This is so that only a few cases reach the House of Lords. The law can only be changed if the parties have the courage, the determination and the money to appeal their case.
There are too many reported cases, almost half a million, and it is not easy to find the relevant case law even with computerised databases. And also the judgement them- selves, which are very lengthy and have no clear distinctions between the comments and the reason for the decision. This doesn't make it easy to identify the ratio decidendi, which in Dodd's case was very difficult to find the ratio in the decision of the House of Lords.
Illogical distinctions To differentiate to avoid past decisions can lead to 'hair splitting' so that some areas of law can become very complex. The differences between some cases can be very small and be unreasonable. Slowness of growth The judges know that some areas of law are not clear and are in need of improvement, but they cannot do anything about it unless the case appears before the court to be decided. This is a disapproval of the need for the Court of Appeal to follow its past decisions, as only 50 cases reach the House of Lords every year. People may have to wait long for a appropriate case to be appealed as far as the House of Lords.